If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
The CNX80 does not have either transponder or DME. It has the ability to
control a remote transponder (set the code). It also has the ability to "tune" a separate DME like any other NAV radio (including the 430/530 of course). Mike MU-2 "Leland Vandervort" wrote in message ... My own 5 euro cents: Garmin missed the boat on one "minor" point with both the GNS430 and the GNS530... for something that is purportedly a "fully integrated comm and navigation system" where is the DME? (Required for Airways certification). GPS derrived distances are not DME, and in Europe are not acceptable as a substitute. As a result, a VERY nice panel with a couple of GNS530 is still not airways approved unless there is a DME (doesn't necessarily have to be slaved), and hence another 1 radio unit (height) taken up on the panel. If I'm not mistaken, the UPS kit has both DME and transponder integrated... I personally prefer the garmin kit though. Could the engineers at Garmin catch up with everyone else please? /tongue in cheek Leland '71 PA28R-200 On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 07:48:57 -0400, John Mireley wrote: Richard Kaplan wrote: Garmin's website now says they are "committed" to providing WAAS GPS approach capability for the 400/500 series by the "end of 2004." UPSAT's site states that their CNX-80 is WAAS approved now but I cannot find an explicit statement that it supports WAAS approaches at this point. Does anyone know for sure if the CNX-80 supports WAAS GPS approaches *now*? In any event, can Garmin really be that far behind the curve as to plan WAAS only fo rthe "end of 2004"? This seems very much atypical for Garmin and almost an embarrassment for them. Garmin lobbied the FAA on the final specs for WAAS so their current processors could meet the spec. They lost. They now have to replace the processors in order to meet the spec. I think the issue was that they could get 3 updates per second and the spec was for 5. This is from my memory of an FAA session at the Great Lakes Aviation Conference back in January. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|